Congressional Democrats Face Uphill Battle in Midterms

The party’s chances of holding onto a majority in the Senate are looking increasingly tenuous.

Residents wait in line to pick up a ballot during early voting at the Black Hawk County Courthouse on September 27, 2012 in Waterloo, Iowa.
National Journal
Charlie Cook
Add to Briefcase
Charlie Cook
March 3, 2014, 5:29 p.m.

At this point, eight months be­fore the Nov. 4 elec­tion, it’s hard to see a lot of good news for con­gres­sion­al Demo­crats.

No mat­ter how you look at it, the House seems out of reach. Today, Re­pub­lic­ans ap­pear a bit more likely to gain than to lose seats; it would take a cata­clys­mic event for Demo­crats to score the net gain of the 17 seats they need to take the ma­jor­ity.

What’s changed is that Demo­crats’ chances of hold­ing onto their ma­jor­ity in the Sen­ate is look­ing in­creas­ingly tenu­ous. There are now at least 10, and po­ten­tially as many as 13, Demo­crat­ic-held seats in jeop­ardy. By con­trast, only two GOP seats are in any mean­ing­ful danger, and that num­ber hasn’t changed in six months.

Things are start­ing to look grisly for Sen­ate Demo­crats. Pres­id­ent Obama’s ap­prov­al rat­ings av­er­age 41 per­cent, ba­sic­ally where Pres­id­ent George W. Bush’s poll num­bers were at this point be­fore his own dis­astrous 2006 second-term, midterm elec­tion. And the Af­ford­able Care Act, Obama’s sig­na­ture le­gis­lat­ive and policy achieve­ment, is now even more un­pop­u­lar than it was in Oc­to­ber and Novem­ber of 2010, when Demo­crats lost 63 seats, con­trol of the House, and a half-dozen Sen­ate seats. It doesn’t help that midterm elect­or­ates tend to be older and whiter than in pres­id­en­tial elec­tions. Obama’s cur­rent job-ap­prov­al rat­ings are also worse than they were in Oc­to­ber and Novem­ber of 2010.

The two most likely le­gis­lat­ive land mines for Re­pub­lic­ans to step on between now and Elec­tion Day have been de­fused: The gov­ern­ment is now fun­ded, and Con­gress won’t need to lift the debt ceil­ing between now and Novem­ber. As a res­ult, it is not clear where the kind of break that Demo­crats need could emerge.

The Sen­ate’s play­ing field keeps get­ting lar­ger and, at least so far, en­tirely at Demo­crats’ ex­pense. Three of their seats are, to put it char­it­ably, up­hill chal­lenges. The open seats in South Dakota and West Vir­gin­ia are pretty much gone. In Montana, it’s un­clear wheth­er newly ap­poin­ted Sen. John Walsh is in any bet­ter po­s­i­tion, apart from fun­drais­ing, than he was when he was just the lieu­ten­ant gov­ernor run­ning for an open seat. Between na­tion­al party com­mit­tees and su­per PACs, the amount of money raised by the can­did­ates and their cam­paigns means less than ever be­fore. With a hand­ful of people in each party ap­par­ently ready to spend $50 mil­lion to $100 mil­lion of their own money on be­half of their favored can­did­ates, a lot of things that used to be im­port­ant aren’t so much any­more.

Al­though it is get­ting sur­pris­ingly little at­ten­tion, Demo­crat Carl Lev­in’s open seat in Michigan is a toss-up; neither of the can­did­ates is par­tic­u­larly strong or well defined, but the nat­ur­al ad­vant­age that a Demo­crat in the Mo­tor State could be ex­pec­ted to have is likely off­set by ugly head­winds caused by ra­dio­act­ive Obama and ACA num­bers. The same can be said for Tom Har­kin’s open seat in Iowa. In both states, the pre­sumptive Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ees have Obama­care votes to de­fend, but the highly prob­lem­at­ic GOP nom­in­a­tion pro­cess in Iowa might well yield an exot­ic and un­elect­able con­tender.

Five Demo­crat­ic in­cum­bents now face tough races, Arkan­sas’s Mark Pry­or is in the most chal­len­ging situ­ation, fol­lowed by Kay Hagan (North Car­o­lina), Mark Be­gich (Alaska), Mary Landrieu (Louisi­ana), and Mark Ud­all (Col­or­ado). Ud­all be­came the latest ad­di­tion to the list when GOP Rep. Cory Gard­ner an­nounced his can­did­acy Sat­urday. Also worth keep­ing a close eye on are Al Franken (Min­nesota); Jeanne Shaheen (New Hamp­shire), if former Sen. Scott Brown runs; and Mark Warner (Vir­gin­ia), who is as strong as a Demo­crat can be in that state but would be in trouble in the event of a melt­down. When there is a pres­id­ent with num­bers this bad, even in­cum­bents who might nor­mally be OK need to be watched care­fully, par­tic­u­larly if there is deeply un­pop­u­lar policy weigh­ing down the party’s can­did­ates.

Many sus­pect that the best — or even only — chance that Demo­crats have of sal­va­ging their ma­jor­ity is if they can pick off one or even two GOP-held seats. This would force Re­pub­lic­ans to gross sev­en or even eight seats to se­cure the six-seat net gain needed to win the ma­jor­ity. The Wash­ing­ton con­ven­tion­al wis­dom is that Minor­ity Lead­er Mitch Mc­Con­nell will ul­ti­mately prove un­beat­able, but there are no data to sup­port that no­tion.

The polls have the Ken­tucky race dead even, and be­ing one of the most power­ful and vis­ible lead­ers in an in­sti­tu­tion with fa­vor­able rat­ings com­par­able to go­nor­rhea is no as­set in this day and age. Un­like Be­gich, Franken, Hagan, Landrieu, Pry­or, Shaheen, Ud­all, and Warner — or Reps. Bruce Bra­ley and Gary Peters, the likely Demo­crat­ic nom­in­ees in Iowa and Michigan — Mc­Con­nell’s chal­lenger, Ken­tucky Sec­ret­ary of State Al­is­on Lun­der­gan Grimes, did not vote for Obama­care and is more as­so­ci­ated with the Clin­tons than Obama. That doesn’t mean she wins, but she will be less saddled with the ACA than her coun­ter­parts in oth­er states. I’d put Ken­tucky at 50-50. The oth­er vul­ner­able GOP seat is in Geor­gia, where Saxby Cham­b­liss is re­tir­ing. The state leans Re­pub­lic­an, but an exot­ic GOP nom­in­ee could make things very in­ter­est­ing, and Michelle Nunn, the CEO of Points of Light and the daugh­ter of former Demo­crat­ic Sen. Sam Nunn, is prov­ing to be one of the party’s strongest re­cruits this cycle, and she is run­ning without a pa­per trail of votes.

It’s far too soon to say that Demo­crats’ Sen­ate ma­jor­ity is his­tory. In 2012, their situ­ation looked pretty grim at this junc­ture, too, but the GOP self-de­struc­ted and nom­in­ated the wrong people in a couple of states, and ended up los­ing three seats.

Still, at this point, it sure looks to be a very ugly year for Demo­crats on Cap­it­ol Hill.

What We're Following See More »
MCCONNELL’S BACK AGAINST THE WALL
Heller, Paul Won’t Vote on Motion to Proceed
5 hours ago
THE LATEST
LESS THAN HOUSE BILL
CBO Says 22 Million More Would Be UNinsured
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The Senate bill "would increase the number of people without health insurance by 22 million by 2026, a figure that is only slightly lower than the 23 million more uninsured that the House version would create. Next year, 15 million more people would be uninsured compared with current law...The legislation would decrease federal deficits by a total of $321 billion over a decade."

Source:
ARKANSAS BIRTH CERTIFICATE LAW OVERTURNED
SCOTUS Delivers a Victory for Gay Couples
7 hours ago
THE DETAILS

"The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of same-sex couples who complained that an Arkansas birth certificate law discriminated against them, reversing a state court’s ruling that married lesbian couples must get a court order to have both spouses listed on their children’s birth certificates."

Source:
63-DAY TRIGGER
Revised Senate Bill Would Add Penalty for Going Uninsured
9 hours ago
THE LATEST
SENT LETTER TODAY
58 House Republicans Ask Ginsburg to Recuse on Travel Ban
9 hours ago
THE DETAILS

The letter reads in part, "There is no doubt that your impartiality can be reasonably questioned; indeed, it would be unreasonable not to question your impartiality. Failure to recuse yourself from any such case would violate the law and undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.” Ginsburg said last year, "He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego."

Source:
×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login